A Journalist’s Guide to Covering Bioterrorism Second Edition Radio and Television News Directors Foundation News Content and Issues Project Published with the generous support of Carnegie Corporation of New York Bioterrorism A Journalist’s Guide to Covering Bioterrorism Second Edition By David Chandler and India Landrigan • Made possible by the generous support of Carnegie Corporation of New York Radio and Television News Directors Foundation • President, Barbara Cochran • Executive Director, Deborah Potter Editors: Mary Alice Anderson, Loy McGaughy Project Advisers: Jerome Hauer, Dr. Phillip Landrigan, Scott Miller, David Ropeik Copyright ©2004 by the Radio and Television News Directors Foundation (RTNDF). All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from RTNDF. Printed in the United States of America. The version of this guide that appears on RTNDF’s web site may be downloaded for individual use, but may not be reproduced or further transmitted without written permission by RTNDF. A JOURNALIST’S GUIDE TO COVERING BIOTERRORISM Table of Contents Foreword .................................................................................................................................3 Why This Guide Is Needed.....................................................................................................5 What Is Bioterrorism?.............................................................................................................7 When Biological Weapons Have Been Used........................................................................11 How a Biological Attack Might Unfold ...............................................................................15 Possible Bioweapons .............................................................................................................18 Laws and Treaties That Govern Biological Weapons ..........................................................31 Who Has Biological Weapons ..............................................................................................35 What Can Be Done for Defense...........................................................................................38 Where to Get Information....................................................................................................42 Glossary .................................................................................................................................46 A JOURNALIST’S GUIDE TO COVERING BIOTERRORISM Foreword Journalists usually are uninvolved observers, reporting on events as they unfold. But as we know all too well—after the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington—when anthrax hit, journalists and news organizations themselves became part of the story. Being in harm’s way is nothing new to the news people who cover wars, natural disasters or other emergencies. Veteran journalists know how to deliver such stories without causing undue alarm, but covering bioterrorism presents a unique set of challenges. Public perceptions may, and likely will, play a deciding role. As it was on September 11 and in the days immediately following, media performance will be critical. If the public panics, responses by government and health authorities may be affected. For example, if a bioterror attack led authorities to impose isolation or quarantine policies and something about the reporting led people to disregard the policies, containing the infection could become more difficult, leading to further deaths. Or, if a frightened public overwhelms hospital and public health facilities, chaos could ensue. Obviously, the opposite also is true: Helpful information, disseminated quickly and effectively, will go a long way toward preventing major disruptions. This is a new kind of problem—for the United States and for the world, for the first-response emergency personnel and for the journalists reporting on them. Thankfully, no one yet has a wealth of experience in responding to bioterror attacks. Unfortunately, that could change. The better prepared we all are to play our respective parts during the heat and confusion of an emergency, the better we will be able to do our jobs. And that’s why RTNDF has prepared this handbook—as one way to help journalists prepare for covering bioterrorism. There is a massive difference between a crisis and a catastrophe, and in the case of bioterror attack, the effects of media coverage on public perception could be the deciding factor between the two. Although we hope none of us ever will need to know the kind of detailed information provided here, we have gathered facts, background information and resources and have presented them in what we hope is an easy-to-use format. Please read this guide now, before you need it, and keep it handy. Should a bioterror attack occur, your viewers and listeners will need critical information, delivered quickly, accurately and in the proper context. We hope this guide serves as one of the many tools you use to deliver the news to a public in need. Special thanks to Carnegie Corporation of New York for providing the funding that enabled RTNDF to prepare this essential publication and to update it in response to strong demand. Barbara Cochran President, Radio-Television News Directors Association and Radio and Television News Directors Foundation April 2004 3 4 A JOURNALIST’S GUIDE TO COVERING BIOTERRORISM Why This Guide Is Needed The very nature of an attack using biological weapons can present a unique set of difficulties and challenges for reporters, editors and producers as they struggle during a rapidly unfolding event to present the facts as clearly, objectively and dispassionately as possible. For example, during the anthrax attacks in information by misguided officials, can make the October 2001, some journalists suddenly found situation much worse—for example, creating public themselves in the middle of the story. They had panic that may be the true objective of the attacker. become specific targets and potential victims of the Conversely, a quick release of the straight, basic facts, very attacks they were reporting on when an restrained reporting and the use of knowledgeable anthrax-laced letter was found at the headquarters and balanced sources can play an important role in of NBC News in New York City and an assistant to controlling needless public fears, disseminating anchorman Tom Brokaw tested positive for the important information about protective measures, disease. Employees at both ABC News and CBS and encouraging rational responses. News also were possible targets and potential There is ongoing debate about exactly how much victims although the actual contaminating letters information to release, when and in what form — a Some journalists were never found in either location. More broadly, it debate that intensified in the wake of the 2001 suddenly found appeared the media in general were being targeted. attacks. Thomas Glass, an epidemiologist and The initial attack was in a letter addressed to sociologist at Johns Hopkins University, published a themselves in the American Media headquarters in Florida, publishers study in December 2001 saying that during the middle of the of a variety of supermarket tabloids, and another anthrax attacks, officials were so intent on averting anthrax-laced letter was received at the New York panic that they withheld some information from the story. They had Post. The attack had become personal, and public and distorted other information. The result, maintaining an impartial demeanor on camera he said, was actually the reverse: People are more become specific became unusually difficult. likely to panic as a result of lack of information. targets and In general, the slow and gradual unfolding of a Numerous studies of emergency responses have biological attack can leave a long interval when there shown that when told the truth about a disaster potential victims is uncertainty about many of the crucial facts: the (natural or human-induced), people tend to remain of the very exact location or extent of the initial release; the type calm and organize themselves to help those who of biological agent used; its level of volatility, have been affected. Among the lessons to be learned, attacks they were virulence and stability over time; or the likelihood of according to several specialists in risk reporting on. additional releases that could take place, or might communication, is that a knowledgeable, official already have taken place but have not yet produced source should have been made available to the press symptoms. Uninformed public speculation during as a regular daily event, and more information this period of maximum uncertainty, or a vacuum should have been provided about measures citizens of information caused by the withholding of could take to protect themselves. 5 A JOURNALIST’S GUIDE TO COVERING BIOTERRORISM Lee Clark, a sociologist at Rutgers University, has very difficult to locate knowledgeable sources for done research that emphasizes this point. He has specific, detailed and realistic information. Initially, found that while public officials and analysts even the nature of the biological agent may be typically cite the risk of panic as a reason for unknown, adding to the difficulty of providing controlling or withholding information, the fact is useful information. Whatever on-air sources can be Some government that panic—defined as group action that is found on very short notice—including